Pressure Systems International, Inc. v. Southwest Research Institute, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3940

In 1993 PSI and Southwest Research entered a contract for developing PSI's ATIS, including confidentiality and invention-assignment provisions that assign to PSI inventions by SW employees and require disclosure of such inventions.
The contract restricted simultaneous R&D for more than one client if a conflict of interest could arise, and SW would assign patent rights to PSI for inventions related to the PSI project.
John Bradley was the principal SW engineer on the PSI project; Ingram, PSI's former president, was later fired in 1997 and ultimately developed a competing ATIS after leaving PSI.
Ingram obtained a patent in 2000 for a competing ATIS and founded Airgo; Airgo later sued PSI, while PSI counterclaimed for various state and federal claims; the federal case involved SW-related ties to Airgo.
During ongoing litigation, PSI learned in January 2007 that SW employees had assisted Ingram in developing the competing ATIS, including Bradley's 1997 activities and subsequent consulting for Airgo.
PSI sued Southwest Research on January 2, 2009 for negligence, negligent hiring/supervision, breach of contract, fiduciary duty, fraud, misappropriation of trade secrets, and TTA violations; SW moved for summary judgment on limitations, which the trial court granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery rule tolls accrual for PSI's claims	PSI argues discovery rule applies, delaying accrual until injury and likely cause by wrongful acts are discovered or should have been discovered.	Southwest Research concedes discovery rule applies but contends accrual began in late 2000 when PSI learned of a competing ATIS; wrongful act need not be identified to trigger accrual.	Accrual remains contested; summary judgment reversed pending fact issues on discovery timing.
Did accrual begin in late 2000 based on patent competing with PSI, without knowing the exact wrongdoer	PSI did not know or could not have known the wrongful acts of SW employees at that time; thus accrual should not have begun.	PSI knew of injury in late 2000 upon learning of the competing ATIS, triggering accrual even without identifying the wrongdoer.	Not conclusively proven as a matter of law; fact issues remain on whether injury was wrongful and caused by SW acts.

Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2001) (discovery rule is a very limited exception to statutes of limitations)
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (discovery rule tolls accrual when injury and cause are discoverable)
Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (accrual begins when injury is discovered or should be discovered, even if cause is not yet known)
PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Partners Ltd., 146 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2004) (accusations about accrual and discovery coupled with limitations analysis)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (burden on defendant to prove accrual and defeat discovery rule at summary judgment)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (fraudulent concealment defers accrual of liability)